It all started when Grant Shapps as Housing Minister invoked the wrath of the Daily Mail among others by suggesting a "It is in everyone's interest to have stable house prices for a long time, because the only way we can make sure housing is more affordable for future generations is not to have these crazy housing booms. We can't go on as a nation thinking that housing is something too expensive for regular people." He added that “We can’t go on thinking that your home is your investment, your retirement plan”. This was backed on ConservativeHome by Tim Collins of the Home Builders Federation. I have a problem with this view however for several reasons.

(1) Housing is affordable

Critics of the property market like to claim housing is no longer affordable and point out data such as this from the Council of Mortgage Lenders which shows that – over the last 50 years – property value as a multiple of salary has increased. Indeed it has, greatly. People today on average spend a far higher percentage of their income on housing costs – rent or mortgage – than in the past, but that doesn’t make housing unaffordable.

Firstly, many of the complaints exist because what is deemed ‘unaffordable’ is often really just ‘unrealistic’ – whether due to location or size – and away from the trendy hot spots there are cheaper properties. You only have to watch Location, Location, Location to be told it’s all about compromise as house hunters seek perfection at a bargain price in a single postal code or handful of streets. It’s a simple fact of life that some things are unaffordable to some people, but that doesn’t mean all things are. Finding a place needing renovation, buying a stepping stone property for the time being, and moving to another area, are all options.

And secondly, people in the UK in comparison to those elsewhere in the EU do not spend a particularly large proportion of income on housing costs. The Dutch, in particular, spend considerably more of their post-tax income on rent or mortgage payments, but other countries do also. This suggests that if forced to, people will prioritise housing over other consumption. Although the percentage of income spent on housing is near record levels, records set in 2007 I believe, you must take into account the fact other prices have fallen. Clothes, electronics, holidays, cars and everything else have fallen in comparison to our incomes, leaving more income for housing. Property – which is limited in supply by its very nature – is thus obviously going to be more inflationary than consumer goods which generally aren’t, whether you accept it or not. We have to accept that property has become less affordable, other things more affordable.

(2) Lower prices reduces supply, rising prices increases it

If we passed a law stating all apartments in Mayfair must sell for £50,000, does that mean we’d all be able to buy one? Of course not. Supply would dry up, and what would come onto the market could only be allocated by some other mechanism such as “needs based assessment”, lottery or corruption. Price is the free market mechanism, and the only one that encourages new supply. Rising prices are needed to give confidence to property developers – who I differentiate here from house builders who profit by building on their extensive green field land banks purchased often years before – to make regeneration of urban areas viable commercially. Indeed developers often need rising prices to make the sums add up and to get the confidence of lenders to even buy the land.

Talk of reducing costs through less regulation is fine if you want to build on green fields, but to regenerate our inner cities we need prices to be rising and the outlook strong. Like a stone dropped in a mill pond rising prices in one area ripple out, lifting previously poorer neighbouring areas as investors and property developers flock in. As these units come onto the market they will give some stabilisation to prices from increased supply, but we need a good outlook to make brown field and urban regeneration viable.

(3) First time buyers don’t need lower prices

Of course they’d like them, but the price isn’t the issue (with the exception of those wanting it all). The real issue is banks demanding a large deposit, in some cases as much as 25%. Saving this up whilst paying rent is obviously hard. Banks however are demanding these huge deposits due to fears about the housing market, and falling or stagnant prices will worsen these fears. It's counter-intuitive but rising prices will make it easier to buy property as lenders will have more confidence that the property is still worth what they loaned if they repossess it. Once prices start to rise, over time, competition between lenders for customers will force banks to work with lower deposits.

(4) Bribing councils is a bad idea

The New Homes Bonus, a means of making development attractive to local councils, is little more than a bribe – if we’re being honest – and will have bad consequences. By making it worth their while, councils – particularly in cash strapped times – will see giving the green light to development as a kind of ‘Get Out of Jail Free’ card. When the money runs out, they’ll go again, and again, ad infinitum. By making no distinction between good development such as regeneration and bad development such as building on green fields, the New Homes Bonus will be a recipe for urban sprawl as that’s what is most profitable for home builders (indeed with some prices it’s all that’s viable). That’s assuming it works. Home builders already have large land banks without plans to develop them, sites with planning consent aren’t selling, half constructed housing estates lie silent, and unless prices start to rise there will be no change (see 2). What is needed is for developments to be made more profitable. Rising prices, and perhaps a cut in Capital Gains Tax for developments on brown field sites.

September 23, 2010

It grieves me to say it. It's well known that I'm a strong supporter of high speed rail, a fan of all things iron horse, but I have to say it: High Speed 2 is terrible. Terrible, terrible, terrible. It is to high speed rail what Heathrow is to air travel and what hospital food is to cuisine. Namely - it does the job but you don't need to be a genius to devise something better.

It thus comes as no surprise to me that the sixteen Conservative MPs whose constituencies it is set to slice through - four of them cabinet ministers and six more junior ministers - are angry. They're right to be angry, as are their constituents, particularly the owners of the 440 homes to be demolished to make way for the line.
Looking at the route drawn up at huge taxpayer expense by HS2 Ltd you could be forgiven for thinking that the planners have simply drawn a wobbly line between two points, taking no account of the natural environment, existing infrastructure, homes or demand.

You'd also be forgiven for thinking that they have perhaps never travelled by train, as passenger convenience seems to be a low priority. You could even be as partisan as to suggest that the last Labour government who oversaw the planning deliberately targeted rural Conservative areas with their unimaginatively named controversy on wheels, though I of course would never do so... Whichever way you look at it however, HS2 - how I hate this trend of numbering rather than naming! - is in need of serious changes.

Part of the problem - and it's a problem with all parties sadly - is that politicians view railways as the answer to the wrong question. Maybe it's because gleaming new passenger trains in swish liveries and with plush seating and air conditioning are just so 'cool', the height of modernity, all sleek and stylish, and something they probably use themselves, but - with few exceptions - railways were not built for passengers. The railways were built for freight, freight was the mainstay of their income, and freight is the biggest opportunity for rail in the 21st Century. Railways are not the answer to long distance car use, they are the answer to road haulage.

It's not glamorous or photogenic, and it won't excite voters much, but if we're going to build a new railway network - and we must - the shipment of freight must be a bigger factor in design than high speed inter-city passenger travel between two distant places. Inter-city services in fact should come third in the list of design priorities after freight and commuters, both of which cause more strain on our transport infrastructure and are easier to crack as a business venture.

With this in mind it's not difficult to imagine a set of criteria from which to plot a route and to judge proposed routes. High Speed 2 should have maximum locations for road/rail interchanges, as used on the Channel Tunnel, allowing "roll on/off" freight; it should give the maximum number of towns access to the new line either through new stations or junctions with existing lines; it should minimise the route mileage constructed on green fields; and of course it must connect to High Speed 1 and Europe.

To quote a CGI meerkat, it's simples, which is why the proposed HS2 route so baffles me. Why does it not connect to HS1 at St Pancras? I know it's tempting to devise any reason to demolish the 1960s eyesore that is Euston Station - I will never forgive Macmillan for demolishing the original - but regeneration shouldn't trump good operations. Why has journey time between London and Birmingham been prioritised over reducing the journey time for more people by joining more towns to the line? Why has freight and the possibility of taking lorries off the roads been completely overlooked? And why does it slice through so much countryside?

I've tried to look positively on HS2, but I can't. It's a terrible plan for what should be a great railway.
High Speed 2 can be a major improvement to our nation's transport infrastructure, but it should begin at St Pancras and run alongside the M1 and M6 - serving St Albans, Northampton, Coventry and Milton Keynes rather than just Birmingham - minimising environmental damage and allowing effective road/rail interchanges. To build any other route would be madness. Let us hope Phillip Hammond realises this.

July 12, 2010

Two enquiries are to be held into the recent saga of Raoul Moat - one into the missed opportunity to avert disaster when prison officers alerted police of the threat and the second into his death - but are we focussing too narrowly and missing a vital necessity of looking at this tragic series of events in a wider sense, to analyse the tactics used and the effectiveness of them? The week-long drama has left us with a mass of questions - a list growing by the day - and if we do not answer them, learn the lessons and emerge from this better prepared then we may well regret not doing so in a way I dread to think. Surely we need to look not just to see whether the procedure was carried out correctly but to see whether the procedure is correct. We were fortunate this time for the small mercy that Moat did not seem interested in targeting the general public - but what if he had been?

Before we even get to the shootings we must ask why Moat was even released from prison if staff were so concerned? Very few criminals serve a full sentence, was Moat granted early release? Even if Moat had served his full sentence, why was there no mental health input given that prison staff were so concerned? The real questions that perhaps are the most important and far reaching however concern the police who - having missed the chance to stop Moat from killing - proceeded to miss every opportunity to catch him. Having delivered a confession letter to a friend, Moat had signalled a person he trusts - yet police failed to keep the individual under observation and consequently missed Moat who returned later. An armed robbery nearby wasn't linked to Moat for a considerable time, details of his car weren't released promptly, and the photographs that were issued were mostly several years old and seemingly selected for their menacing look rather than accuracy to such an extent that when CCTV footage was eventually released - again days later - police had to point out his "significant weight loss". It was hardly a good start.

When the village of Rothbury came into the search any hope of a surprise capture rapidly evaporated. Was alerting Moat of their presence and alarming the public - initially ordering people into their homes by loud speaker - really a good idea? Was it really the most effective way of capturing Moat to launch a Hollywood-style manhunt in the Northumbrian countryside, complete with 250 armed officers, 20 armoured cars, helicopters, the RAF and Kay Burley? At the very least we wasted millions and fed Moat's ego, making him less likely to surrender and more likely to commit further crimes to live up to the image being built up, while far worse we have potentially given a blueprint to every psychopathic narcissist with longings of criminal infamy from here to Timbuktu. (We know Moat mentioned Derek Bird and will never know how that affected him).

As images of police cars speeding (why speeding anyway?) around Rothbury were beamed around the globe, I couldn't help but think how unlikely to lead to capture it all was. We cannot run an alternative tactic on the same scenario unlike in a computer model, but I genuinely think a few undercover officers and tracker dogs would have been on the trail long before the manhunt - more by luck than judgement - eventually located Moat. Genuine policing - rather than Robocop dramatics which are never there when you need them - also had its role underplayed. A farmhouse was broken into for food but not kept observed, again missing Moat making a second visit apparently to sleep there. Another break in at a nearby cottage whilst the owner was upstairs could have been another opportunity - had police following up the 999 call arrived that day. Both properties were just yards from the well known storm drain and stepping stones where Moat was found. Instead of following up these vital leads armed police patrolled schoolyards and marched around rural lanes. When eventually cornered further failure ensued with Moat's uncle and brother's offer to negotiate for police falling on deaf ears. (The quote "I have no dad, no one cares about me" will no doubt haunt them. Whatever you think of Moat you have to feel for those that did care - particularly his brother and uncle who will forever feel they could have saved Moat from himself - and for his children).

In general the whole saga has left me anything but confident in the police.

The Conservatives are generally seen and view themselves as the party of law and order. At times that spills over - as it does with other public sector professions in general among the public - into blind support for the police and refusal to criticise. We mustn't let it spill over. If we care about security and justice we must be painfully honest. In Northumbria serious mistakes were made, and only through identifying those failings can we learn from them. We cannot have a tolerance for the ineffectual, failing or incompetent, there simply isn't room for error. We were relatively lucky this time, though not universally so; next time - and it's inevitable there will be a next time - we might not be so fortunate.

*****

On the topic of justice, the Moat shootings have knocked Ken Clarke's dangerous plans to cut prison places and abolish short sentences into the long grass for now. It's temporary and will be back. The Left, and sadly Ken seems to be with them on this, often puts the cart before the horse with dire consequences. In economics they prioritise equality, forgetting you first need to create wealth in order to redistribute it. In justice the cart-horse-configuration error among the Left is most bizarre however given its total lack of logic. We all know of course that it's the supply of criminals that leads to prisoners demanding places; the left however seems to think it's the prisons fuelling demand for criminals. Pointing to statistics showing that territories with higher prison populations have correspondingly high rates of crime, they suggest imprisoning fewer people will lead to less crime. It's the same logic that says areas with high sales of rain-macs have more rain, therefore if everyone in Caernarfon burnt their rain-macs and invested in swim suits, RayBans and factor 25 sun-block then the town would turn into a Welsh speaking San Tropez. It won't. Rain will always fuel rain-mac demand, crime will always lead demand for prison places.

That's not to say we can't reduce the prison population. Firstly through analysing who is sent to prison and how effective it is compared to alternatives, and secondly through better policing, justice and sentencing. It turns out those countries with low numbers of prisoners not only have a low crime rate but also a higher rate of solving crimes and prosecution being successful. The more likely to be caught, the less likely potential criminals are to commit crime, leading to fewer crimes and thus fewer prisoners. It's the Laffer Curve. Simples, unless you're a Leftist.

May 07, 2010

“I think it is now for the Conservative Party to prove that it is capable of seeking to govern in the national interest,” Nick Clegg told the press, with a certain tone and emphasis on the words “capable” and “seeking”. There was something about that statement that felt odd; there felt more to it than what was actually said. There was a sense of discomfort, a sense of disappointment, and a sense of uncertainty – as you’d expect – but most of all I felt there was a sense of an attempt to avoid future blame. With all the talk of coalitions and deals, we are missing that the actual result – bad for the LibDems in terms of vote share and seats – is perhaps even worse for the LibDems than the figures initial show. Clegg knows this, and I am without doubt that Cameron does too.

Nick Clegg of course long wished for a hung parliament, but it’s always wise to be careful what you wish for. The LibDems hoped that they would wake today not only holding the balance of power but also in a situation where they had some degree of moral authority themselves – in terms of vote share if not seats, perhaps polling a strong second and nearing 30% – which would enable them to take a major role in the formation of a new government. A new government that is with Labour. During the campaign Clegg even spoke of ousting Gordon Brown in the event of a Lib/Lab deal, and Labour is their natural ally. With a good result they would have the ability to make the government feel sufficiently new and LibDem, even if mostly Labour, to aboid public wrath for propping up an unpopular Labour government – particularly in their affluent southern seats such as Cheltenham. That authority is though not existent and this leaves the LibDems in a corner – or rather on a fence.

When Clegg said “it is now for the Conservative Party to prove that it is capable of seeking to govern in the national interest” he was not inviting Cameron to pop round for a chat or giving his blessing to a Conservative minority government. That might be what it was meant to look like, but it’s not what it was. LibDems hate Tories, the seats they hold they do so by squeezing Tory-hating Labour voters; a pact with the Conservatives would cause an exodus. Yet a pact with Labour– their natural ally – without the orange revamp I discussed, would cause a different exodus of the more affluent voters they also need. It’s a lose/lose situation; LibDems have been able to play both ways, sitting on the fence – last night that fence collapsed.

Clegg knows that Brown has the constitutional right to the first attempt at forming a government, but by offering an olive branch first to Cameron he was hoping for a rejection. “Old politics strikes again,” he would say, attacking the Conservatives for being arrogant in refusing to share power and putting politics before the national interest. Having made the offer and been rejected, he could then sit back on the fence – opting for neutrality – and thus avoid blame for either propping up Brown or “letting the Tories in”. A kind of “Don’t blame me, I voted Liberal*” policy which, in the ensuing instability and tough times might even be popular as a campaign. (*Was it Tony Hancock who said this?)

However by (rightfully I add) making a genuine “big, open and comprehensive offer” to Nick Clegg to “work together in tackling the big and urgent problems - the debt crisis, the deep social problems and broken political system”, David Cameron has put the ball back in Clegg’s court as well as putting the country first. Do the LibDems accept this, shedding their anti-Tory vote, or reject this – putting electoral reform before the national interest on the economy, jobs, stability, schools, tax reform etc and shedding affluent liberal voters – to save a failed, rejected and unpopular PM?

Now Clegg must decide – the fence has been demolished. Either way they will lose voters and seats, realigning politics back to two parties. But then, wasn’t realignment something else they wished for?

April 13, 2010

There isn’t a precise definition of what constitutes a ‘national treasure’ when talking about a person, nor an application process or selection procedure. People just become ‘national treasures’ by stealth – the precise moment often unknown – after being in the public eye for a sufficiently long time and having garnered enough respect from the public to be almost universally well regarded to the point of being all but untouchable by criticism. Joanna Lumley has probably crossed that line, her impressive and honourable campaign for Ghurkha veterans sealing the deal, and as proof of this new political near-invincibility is her recent interview in Saga Magazine.

Ms Lumley told Saga Magazine that Britain has lost the ‘zing’ factor which once made the country so great and cited the loss of the Empire as a contributing factor. Generally any mention of the E-word in anything but a wholly negative sense leads to instant savaging, however using her new ‘national treasure’ status Ms Lumley survived unharmed. I must however disagree with Ms Lumley, just a little, in pointing the finger of blame regarding Britain’s lost “zing” at the end of Empire. Britain in the ‘80s had “zing”, Britain in the swinging ‘60s partly had “zing”, and throughout history Britain has had “zing” – whatever “zing” actually is – but when asking where that energetic, innovative, imaginative and aspirational “zing” has gone we need only look at the government.

In every field the Labour Government since 1997 has had an unbelievable lack of energy and imagination – worse even than previous Labour governments – and this poverty of aspiration has stifled Britain in the most depressing of ways.

In foreign affairs it is perhaps most telling, Labour pursuing a dual policy of subservience to the US and the EU that betrays not only Britain but also those very partners. America does not want or need a poodle partner, as Blair was in many ways aptly portrayed. They loved Margaret Thatcher – like Churchill before her – because they want and need a strong partner with a strong will. America has so resolutely shrugged its national shoulders at sycophantic Brown, desperate for their attention and love, because his government isn’t the strong ally they need. Closer to home but similarly uninspired is our bizarre relationship with Europe. Labour’s poverty of aspiration for Britain – seeing an ever closer Europe as our “destiny” – combined with our national Euroscepticism has left us as a Victor Meldew like passenger complaining endlessly yet offering no alternative before reluctantly agreeing in the end. But Europe does not want or need an unwilling yet unimaginative passenger, and nor do the British public want to be it.

Back in Britain the abysmal Labour mindset has drained our energy and set our sights low in a similar fashion. Whilst Hong Kong and Osaka built grand new airports on artificial islands, with flight paths far away from population centres, Labour plans to add an insufficiently sized third runway to a badly designed airport located in the wrong place. Plans for high speed rail are equally lacking. Once upon a time great engineers such as Brunel designed with not only the ambition to build the best but the plans to do so. They built grand termini and impressive infrastructure, projecting their vision through company names declaring that greatness – Great Western, Great Eastern, Great Northern - but whilst Sir Edward Watkin set out to build a railway from Manchester to Paris in 1864, Labour in 2010 thinks a line between London and Birmingham is ambitious. The sheer contrast is evident in the names – Watkin built the Great Central, Labour proposes the unexciting “High Speed 2”.

Now if Labour’s poverty of national aspiration was confined to these areas then that may be manageable, but we know that it isn’t. In education, healthcare, the economy, and every other policy area, Labour has failed not just on delivery but ambition. There is however another way...

Today David Cameron launched the Conservative Party’s manifesto. In the pages of this unassuming book, bound in deepest blue, are what are I believe to be the most radical blueprints for reform ever published by a major political party. Californian it may be, but its mantra of empowering people and transforming the state into the servant of the people is also instinctively Tory. It’s a manifesto that says we as a society can do whatever it takes to build a better future – just as Churchill proved we could do whatever necessary to defeat fascism – and that says we as individuals are best placed to govern our lives – just as Thatcher proved we were best placed to govern ourselves in the 80s. It’s a manifesto not to get rid of government, but to make it work with us rather than over us. It’s a manifesto that announces that we are too great a nation to limit ourselves to small dreams, a manifesto that believes in us as a country and in our capacity to achieve great things. It’s a manifesto that doesn’t just sound Californian, it sounds like one particular Californian.

February 28, 2010

As the Conservative poll lead shrinks ever smaller – to just 2 points in Sunday’s YouGov poll – the chances of a Conservative majority after the election are being cut it seems every day. “The Conservative Party has been eased to 4/7 from ½ (a 63 percent chance from 66 percent) to win a majority at the next General Election,” reads a Ladbrokes press release. “Not so long ago a majority for David Cameron appeared a formality. That’s certainly not the case now.” They can say that again.
It may be that in future analysis this 16-point narrowing is observed as a blip, an odd polling phenomena that couldn’t be accounted for and soon corrected itself, but there is an increasing risk that it isn’t. I do not mean to cause alarm, or appear defeatist, but I fear that if we do not take heed of this warning then we could be just weeks away from a fourth Labour term.
In so many ways I wish that we had never had the double-digit mega leads that have perhaps catastrophically engrained complacency, as good as they felt at the time. Even now we console ourselves in the belief that we are performing better in the marginals that matter most – perhaps we are, but are we performing better enough in enough marginals? – and that we can still win through effort – knocking on that extra door, calling that extra voter, delivering that extra leaflet – but there is a threat that this won’t be enough. With every vote now counting, the role of the internet could now prove decisive.
Now my views on internet campaigning – particularly Twitter – are well known and not universally shared here on ConservativeHome CentreRight or with the Party leadership, but this one last time I will make the case. The situation we now face I will call the situation of increasing returns (though I welcome better titles), in which the closer the election the greater impact the internet will have. I concede that online campaigning may only sway a few voters – though point out this is true of all types of campaigning – but the closer fought the election not only does each vote count more but the greater the number of votes swayed by the internet becomes. In a tightly fought election people think far more about their decision, absorb more information, discuss more with others and research their options in a far greater degree. Whilst these things were once greatly limited, the internet has opened new possibilities. Where once there was a chat by the water cooler there is Facebook and Twitter, where once there was a few leaflets there is now Google. If we go into this election with the polls putting both the Conservatives and Labour within a few points, it could well be the internet which decides who enters Downing Street.
A few years ago the Conservatives had a strong lead over Labour on the internet front, but the prospect of election defeat focussed socialist minds and today things are much more evenly matched. On Twitter - which I understand has 5 million UK users - Labour is ahead with several accounts such as Sarah Brown and Labour supporting Stephen Fry boasting 1-million plus followings. I have said before, but it is really time David and Sam Cameron joined. War does not yet seem to have been declared fully on YouTube, but if Labour supporters' billboard spoofing and the US Presidential Election are anything to go by then we can expect viral video (perhaps employing comedy) to be a feature. Viral advertising - spread by others and thus in part endorsed as a message by them - is without doubt the best form of advertising, and after the billboard spoofs turned up on the hotly contested Mumsnet I expect Labour will seek more such campaigns. (The Conservatives could perhaps establish a semi-independent team outside of CCHQ to focus on viral promotions?)
In conclusion I guess this is a final plea for the internet to play a greater role, a final plea that the good work of CCHQ's New Media team is allowed to expand, be built upon, and be made as central to campaigning as can be. We cannot be complacent - we have to use everything and leave nothing - and at the moment we aren't using everything. With a 2 point lead - to borrow a phrase - we can't go on like this, we need to Twitter the message and get viral.

February 23, 2010

The papers and blogosphere have got themselves in a spin over the latest revelations from inside Brown’s bunker, and as usual many are getting over excited. This time it is the allegations in Andrew Rawnsley's new book that Gordon Brown bullied staff, and the claims that several resorted to calling the National Bullying Helpline, which have lead to headlines such as “The Prime Monster” in The Sun. With the Tory lead narrowing there is a hope that these character defining stories will fatally wound the Prime Minister, but however much wishful thinking I employ I am certain that they won’t.

There was a time when the phrase that ‘mud sticks’ bore truth. In some cases it still does, but only in the cases of the very worst, stickiest of ‘mud’ stories that connect to the raw emotions of the public (we’re talking moat cleaning and duck houses to be honest). In today’s 24/7 round-the-clock media age a more apt saying has taken prominence: today’s newspaper is tomorrow’s chip-paper. The act of using newspaper to wrap chips has long since been outlawed, today’s newspapers now become tomorrow’s recycled eco-toilet roll, but the fact remains that this story – like most stories – has a limited shelf life and for Gordon Brown it’s simply a case of sitting it out. Like the handwriting and spelling story last November, it will soon be over and forgotten.

What makes the situation even less beneficial to the Conservatives is that – amid a large section of the public – bullying, aggressive and in my opinion slightly unhinged behaviour is viewed as strength of leadership. To a certain degree some people have always viewed aggression in this way, it’s why so many dictators have gained support despite behaviour that is utterly bonkers. Unfortunately the left-leaning media – especially the BBC – has promoted this view of leadership through programmes such as the Marxist caricature of business we call The Apprentice. Aggressive, angry people such as Alan Sugar and his contestants are held up as models of leadership and success (for a contrast watch the US version). In today’s Britain, Brown’s Nokia-hurling, “clunking fist” bullying is seen by many as strength, conviction, and the leadership needed for success. Cool, calm and collected is tragically seen as quiet, shy and weak. It’s therefore imperative that the Conservatives focus on the real issues, and one issue in particular.

Gordon Brown may be a bully but the issue that matters is that during his time as Prime Minister and Chancellor he borrowed beyond belief, going from abusing his Golden Rule to abusing the national Gold Card with very few even noticing. We have spoke briefly about the deficit, but so many people do not even know what that is (we should substitute National Debt instead). It’s not his abuse of staff that should be our focus, but instead his abuse of our nation’s finances. The staff can stand up for themselves. Unless the public understand that Labour maxed out our credit cards to the point they’re about to get cut up at the supermarket till – and we must use such everyday language and comparisons – then a Conservative-victory could slip away.

In short we’ve got to stop attacking Bully Brown, our real enemy at this election is Gordon Gold-Card.

Now it is possible to have sympathy for the victim and, in our relative comfort, feel that such a life is not worth living. Impossible as it is to truly understand, we end up mentally transposing ourselves into their situation, finding that which we do not know to be an unbearable shock, and coming to this conclusion. It is also possible to have sympathy for the family, burdened by their loved one, and again mentally transposing ourselves into their situation, finding that which we do not know to be an unbearable shock, having some sympathy perhaps for why they did it.

It would be all too easy for us to romanticise the tragedy of the dire reality, with sadness deem that the actions were in love, and decide to turn a misty eye by granting clemency for ‘mercy killings’. We may then feel merciful, compassionate and civilised, but life is seldom so simple and the road to Hell so often paved with good intentions.

We live in such an individualistic world today that we sometimes forget that which is universal and for all of us. Law is not and cannot be about individual cases; it’s about all of us, for any of us could end up in such a situation and need its protection. The laws on killing are there to protect all of us, not just those of us society today deems have lives worth defending, and that defence is as much about being a deterrent as being a punishment.

If it becomes law that killings deemed mercy killings are accepted, a great many others will become victims of such killings and killings claimed to be such but which are not. Whatever sympathy we have for the despair some people are in, we must deny ourselves the comforting ease of legal mercy, if not as punishment on behalf of the victim then as deterrence for the sake of those others.

January 17, 2010

Far be it from me to speak on this matter for all concerned but, in the absence of any other voice articulating this argument I will write just this once upon a subject area I steer clear of wherever possible, namely “diversity” – in its politically correct pigeon hole sense – and in particular but not exclusively a group known as “disabled people” of which I am considered a member.

As a “disabled person” I've got mixed views on this. Whilst I understand the desire to get a broader range of experience into politics I do not think pigeon holing people then throwing money at them is a good idea and could unintentionally sound rather patronising. At worst these charities often have their own agendas, and channelling money through them for the explicit purpose of politics could lead to terrible and far reaching consequences.

So what to do if, like me, you think Parliament lacks diversity but rule out all forms of “positive discrimination”, “affirmative action” or whatever euphemism is currently in vogue for treating people not as individuals but based on a single two-dimensional physical attribute? Labour have tried all women shortlists, the enforced option that ended so acrimoniously in Blaenau Gwent, and the Conservative A-List was similarly unpopular. Labour talk of all “non-white” shortlists are likely to prove even more unpopular, not least because – like the many women who objected to all women shortlists – people would rather not be judged by the colour of their skin, or gender, or physical ability, but by the content of their character.

The answer, in a rather philosophical manner, lies in another question. What do we actually want MP to be? What is the job description? And, importantly in terms of diversity, could this job description be a major factor in encouraging self-selection? We know already that far fewer women and disabled people apply to join the Party’s Candidate List. My opinion – that what we expect MP to do actually puts off many people – was reinforced by this article by Iain Dale urging the whips to make candidates realise that that, if elected, it's going to be noses to the grindstone.

Now I am by no means advocating lazy MP, or indeed significant change, but if the job description requires needlessly unsociable hours and “hanging around” in the bubble of Westminster simply to walk through whichever door the Whips tell you to, you’re ruling out most people before you even start. As odd as it may sound, some people like to see their families, have outside interests, health issues, or don’t fancy loitering around what feels like a co-ed gentleman’s club.

For too long there has been a strange resistance to simple reforms. For example electronic division voting (as I understand is available to MSPs) would mean all MPs could vote on all motions, whether in Parliament at the time or not, freeing up time for proper legislative scrutiny and making the job an option for more people, particularly those who put their family first. It would also end the lunacy of unwell Members being taken to divisions in hospital beds! More normal hours (i.e. 9am-5pm) would also be particularly attractive to potential applicants with families, and have the added benefit of reducing the numbers needing second homes!

Surely then we should be looking not at throwing money at those in certain pigeon holes but instead at increasing applications, from all walks of life, by eliminating the unnecessary factors that lead to severe self-selection?

December 23, 2009

Now there’s a headline I bet you thought you’d never see attached to an article on ConservativeHome, let alone one by me. But I stick to it, and it’s nothing to do with seasonal goodwill or anything like that. The truth is, and it pains me to say it, but I ought to say it now before he reverts to normal service of being entirely wrong on everything, so here it is: Peter Mandelson has said something right. Call Reuters, call the Associated Press, call CNN – it’s a mini-miracle.

"Over the next spending review period, we will want some shift away from full-time three year [degree] places and towards a wider variety of provision," Lord Mandelson said, with two year courses on the cards. Three cheers for that.

When I applied for university I was part of the first year paying “top-up tuition fees” and was rather alone in my form – that’s an understatement, I was alone – in believing they were a good idea. Indeed I went beyond that and believed, indeed still do believe, that they should be increased to cover the full cost of the specific degree course at that specific institution. (With loans repayable upon a certain earning’s threshold, and maybe a few specific scholarships for deprived youngsters and sponsorships on a commercial basis, for instance by the NHS for doctors). Otherwise, non-graduates shouldn’t pick up the tab of graduates, the bin man should not subsidise the barrister.

The whole system of higher education seemed archaic to me, and the more you research the more archaic it appears. University places are decided not by student demand in the form of course applicants meeting entry requirements and the willingness of the institution to supply, but by the government Higher Educational Funding Council’s willingness to fund places (in one instance rejecting a bid from the oversubscribed LSE in favour of expanding an undersubscribed new university); with offers made among the qualified applicants at random, by quick interview, or by reading their largely fictional personal statements. Once accepted, students on cost intense degrees pay the same as those on a basic degree costing far less, with the government contribution and support the same regardless of the degree’s economic use to the student, let alone the country and long suffering taxpayer. Who thought up such madness?

But what struck me most was the time taken. Three years, three whole years! As Lord Mandelson now agrees, it can be done easily in two, maybe even just one.

Now some critics say students will lose out on the social aspects of being at university if degrees are shortened, but I really cannot fathom this argument out. Are the government in the business of subsidising the social lives of 18-21 year olds, at taxpayer expense? Of course not. And besides, the three year option will still be there: let individual students decide.

So that is why, for once, credit where credit is due, I can say that Lord Mandelson is right. It just goes to show that there’s a first time for everything (except voting Labour of course).

December 16, 2009

Going by the response to my post yesterday supporting the Conservative drive to recruit celebrity supporters, and advocating a greater use of social networking websites such as Twitter, it isn't a tactic which is overwhelmingly popular. I would however like to take this opportunity to clear up a few issues and advance my case.
Firstly, I do not advocate an either/or choice between traditional campaigning and online campaigning, which is how some on both sides unfortunately see the issue. The two forms of campaigning are not mutually exclusive, and indeed a celebrity and social media campaign would take very little if anything away in terms of resources from the 'ground war' of door knocking, leaflet delivering etc. The results however could be huge. It was suggested that social media campaigning was like air support to the combat forces on the ground doing the actual meeting, delivering etc, however - to continue the military analogy - Twitter and other social media are more akin to special forces, breaking in via the back door. Knocking on doors can deliver leaflets and interaction between total strangers, one of whom unfortunately probably finds the other a bit strange, whereas Twitter can deliver a completely unexpected message, website or broadcast from a celebrity that individual may admire, right to the computers and phones of many thousands of people. Unlike blogs, social media is also a means of reaching the disillusioned and not simply preaching to the converted.
Secondly, I do not believe in trying to find any old celebrity, which would indeed look desperate (unless their support is more subtle, such as on Twitter). In my example of Cheryl Cole and shampoo I discussed finding the right celebrity for the right product, and the importance of aligning this right. Labour loves using Stephen Fry, because he is viewed widely as hugely intelligent which leads people to respect his opinion, just as Head & Shoulders love using Cheryl Cole because she has nice hair, and financial firms like using Carol Vorderman because she is viewed as a maths expert. Where is the Conservatives' Stephen Fry?
Finally, I do not advocate becoming a policy free void filled with minor pop star celebrities. No sort of campaigning is a replacement for that, online or on the street, and indeed having a sensible, coherent and popular set of policies is vital to the success of an online campaign just as any other campaign - after all, we need something to stay, online as on the pavement.
So where exactly do the Conservatives start? I have no idea of how celebrity edorsements are solicited, however a good trick I find in most things is to see what works and copy it. Given that Sarah Brown has over 1 million followers on Twitter, I'd be signing Samantha Cameron up asap...

December 15, 2009

Recently a report on ConservativeHome about CCHQ’s drive to recruit celebrity endorsements led to some debate about the merit of such endorsements. Whilst there is of course an upper limit on the result (which wearing my economist’s hat I shall call ‘value’) of any electoral tactic where the opportunity cost in terms of man hours or money of a certain action makes it less effective than another action, I am very firmly of the opinion that such a policy is long overdue.

I’m not suggesting that anyone will switch their vote purely because Celebrity X endorsed the Conservatives (though some may), but then very few people beyond children who long to ‘be cool’ switch their shopping preferences because of the celebrity used on the advert, yet that doesn’t stop hugely successful companies paying millions for celebrities to be on commercials for their products or even to be seen using them. They do it for a reason, the reason is that it works.

People don’t directly decide to buy a certain shampoo because Cheryl Cole endorses it, but people who like Cheryl and think she is trustworthy in this field because she has nice hair, and are open to considering a new shampoo (i.e. not bald), might give it a try. It’s a case of finding a well liked person, trusted in that product’s field, and there being a target demographic of ‘floating’ consumers open to the possibility of changing habits. Right person, right product, right target.

In politics rather than commerce the situation of finding the right celebrity for the right target demographic is even harder. The product is not shampoo or perfume but a political party comprising thousands of people, a raft of policies, and a collection of historical baggage, both good and bad, along with the ingrained prejudices such as class war that result. The target ‘floating voters’ are even harder to define, varying in every way you can imagine, and – unlike in the past – by and large not at all region specific, instead being a kaleidoscope of individuals with multiple, non-exclusive attributes to each of their respective multi-dimensional personalities. The MOSAIC database divides us by postcode into 61 groups, but even this is far too simplistic.

December 08, 2009

Tomorrow is the pre-budget report (PBR) in which the Chancellor will attempt to spin success from the grips of failure, boom from the unmitigated bust, stability from the tremors of recession, victory from the jaws of defeat. He may as well abandon all pretence - even the great conjurer Brown cannot magic up any more fictional fixes, mystery millions or surprise spending sprees. The country is on the verge of going bust. If the structural deficit of nearly 8% of GDP is not addressed we will almost certainly lose our current credit rating, increasing the cost of public and private borrowing, sending more businesses and homeowners into bankruptcy, sending yet more people into long term unemployment – the nation forced into even deeper cuts and tax hikes across the board to control the cost of borrowing.

Some are suggesting tax increases will plug the deficit – they are wrong. At nearly £200 billion per year, taxes alone cannot plug the gap. Indeed as every true conservative knows, higher taxes will only worsen the crisis. Now more than ever we need to maximise the productive private sector, boost business, and encourage the World’s wealth to our shores through lower taxes. Now more than ever we must confront something which has been on the cards for so long but, to the political leadership of this country, has been something they have long preferred to ignore.

Walk along Whitehall and it is as if nothing is wrong – traffic snarls up in the ever longer rush hour, the Westminster village mingles, tourists snap photographs – but just yards away is a different scene. Like the Bermuda Triangle, the thin triangle between Downing Street, Parliament and the Treasury has a lot of mystery to it. Disappearing here are not boats and planes but boat loads of taxpayers’ money, as the failing Labour government tries desperately to cling on to power. Fears of a man made black hole being created by the CERN research lab proved wrong – the black hole isn’t under the Swiss border but at the heart of our government, sucking up not the World but our nation’s future, and at the controls – where he has been since 1997 in one title or another– stands Gordon Brown.

Less a Hoover, more of a Dyson, Labour’s financial vacuum’s suction never wanes and its bag is never full. They say that money talks; under Labour it screams for help! Unless the United Kingdom wishes to decay into obscurity, the next government has no option but to cut spending – and the battle for a mandate to do so begins with the Conservative response to the PBR tomorrow.

November 27, 2009

There aren't many times I diverge from the ConservativeHome stance - my support for increased NHS spending being the main occassion - but I feel the decision by Alan Johnson to extradite computer hacker Gary McKinnon to the US is another such case.

Many are critical of the decision due to anti-Americanism, so I feel that I should address this first. I do not oppose the extradition because I am anti-American, because I'm not, nor because of the one-sided nature of the extradition treaty. I do so because the whole situation is wrong and, as supportive of the US as I am, there are times when they need a firm rebuke. Margaret Thatcher thought nothing of telephoning Reagan to give him a piece of her mind, and America and Reagan loved her for it. America does not want a lap dog ally, and it certainly doesn't benefit from having one. The US needs a strong and good friend which is honest with it, and good friends don't let friends behave like this.

Gary McKinnon has Aspergers Syndrome, whereby he does not understand the consequences of his actions. In many ways he is like a child in this regard, would we extradite a child? Although he is incredibly intelligent in certain ways, he does not understand things which seem obvious to us, and so the grounds of diminished responsibility can fairly be invoked.

November 20, 2009

Over a no doubt lavish meal on the taxpayers' tab last night 27 European leaders "elected" a President of the EU [Council] and a "High Representative" or "Foreign Minister" in a process more akin to the election of a Pope than politician. The election of a virtually unknown Belgian and equally unknown Baroness has caused anger among Eurosceptics - it shouldn't, I could scarcely be happier or have made a better choice.

First let us take the job of "President", a job without a job description. Had the European leaders last night selected a well known, high profile and charismatic candidate for the role, particularly one popular in the US, that would have set the mould for the position as one of importance and power - the sort of person you would ring to "speak to Europe", the sort of person who would "stop the traffic". That would have been a disaster for nation states, suddenly bypassed and irrelevant. Instead the "chairmanic" argument won the day. Yes Van Rompuy is a federalist who will push for more integration - which as a Eurosceptic I oppose but feel may at least force the issue to be tackled - but the only way he is going to stop the traffic is if he falls off his bike on the way to work.

Last night after his election I understand he sat eagerly by the telephone, and I expect he is still there, awaiting a call from Obama. Eventually it may ring and he may answer - in that old fashioned way - "Brussels 272727, Mr Van Rompuy speaking, President of the Council of the European Union, former Prime Minister of Belgium and officially the World's most famous Belgian - but it is more likely to be his Mother asking if he had remembered to tape The Restaurant whilst she was at bingo than President Obama inviting him to the White House. In short, the election of an uncharismatic, unknown, uninspiring, unexciting and frankly unusual politician from a small country best known for chocolate is a victory for all who oppose the EU having a global role.

The same can be said for the new High Representative turned Foreign Minister, Baroness Ashton. What could have been worse for Eurosceptics than the election as Foreign Minister of a high profile, internationally known, foreign policy whizz with his/her own viewpoint? Instead we have an unelected New Labour peer with no knowledge or experience of foreign policy, no hotline to the Americans, and no real contacts. To be blunt, European leaders have elected the John and Edward of politics to the positions of President and High Representative. Brilliant.

Equally good for Eurosceptics is the way the decision was made. Behind closed doors, by the political elite, over a lavish dinner, the whole process was symbolic of the EU. Had the roles been elected by a Europe wide vote - as some have suggested - it would have given them some degree of democratic legitimacy, built a concept of European Citizenship in people's minds, given the posts a far bigger profile, and moved the centre of political gravity towards Brussells. What could have been worse?

November 04, 2009

Today is the day that the future of the Conservative Party and of the United Kingdom will be decided. It may sound slightly dramatic, but it's true. It's a curious fact of history that so often the biggest events and grandest changes both good and bad were caused by the smallest of events and most seemingly insignificant or minor of inspirations. James Watt created the steam engine after watching a kettle, the Iron Curtain began to crumble due to a picnic, Robert the Bruce fought on after watching a spider, and the First World War began after a single shot. The impact of events is impossible to calculate accurately at their contemporary time.
Today no bullets will be fired nor any picnics held. Many kettles are likely to be boiled as the details of policy are worked and reworked and reworked again, but they are likely to be electric. We can but hope that Conservative Central Office is suffering an invasion of inspirational Arachnida, because fight on they must.
Today we will find out what "not letting matters rest" means. This is the moment when David Cameron decides the future route - towards Europe, or towards independence - and whom he wishes to do battle with - a winnable fight with Brussels, or an unwinnable fight with his own party, and indeed his own country. The EU has now gone too far, there is no getting beyond that. Lisbon cannot be undone. Renegotiation will only be meaningful if it involves the negotiation of some alternative form of membership, an affiliation or alliance perhaps, where we trade freely and can tag-along when we want, back them up when we want, but decide things ourselves but most of all always speak for and represent ourselves. This leads to an enhanced "In/Out" referendum worded correctly, offering the choice between the EU and this suitably possitive "fluffy sounding" trade area slash peace pact - as I discussed in an earlier article - as now being the only option. (A manifesto pledge would be fine also, as it's the ends that matter and not the means, but a referendum might keep the vocal Euro-Nationalist minority a bit more quiet).
In return for this, I am without doubt, all Eurosceptics should give Cameron a blank cheque with regards everything else. Modernisation, governance, all women shortlists, even new grammar schools - and I went to one and think they are brilliant - are nothing compared to this. The issue is now so important, so vital, and such a cross roads in our history, that nothing else matters.

October 26, 2009

How depressing is this article in the New York Times, which in very few words sums up how a huge number of Washington’s policy makers and particularly the Obama administration view Great Britain and her future – as a friend “[to be] ceded to American interests coldly assessed” as “on issues from Afghanistan to climate change, Obama wants Europe to step forward…a strong European Union with an effective British presence.” Wishful thinking perhaps from their view, slightly insulting from ours, and highly improbable from the point of view of realism.

I can see the American’s view, to a point. How convenient for them if all of those troublesome “Europeans” (an insulting term in my opinion, we wouldn’t dream of calling a Canadian an American) and their once war torn continent became one, and where that one was just like Britain – supportive, in agreement, happily second fiddle, Robin to their Batman – rather than a plurality of “Lilliputian European state[s]” with different views, different leaders and different languages. It would be as if Britain had subsumed its neighbours and the new entity remained unchanged; it might even be run by Tony Blair! Of course this point of view makes as much sense as gambling your entire worth at roulette on red number 27 – it’s a hugely unlikely gamble – but wishful thinking usually is. But if America does wish for a strong EU, it should remember the old saying of ‘be careful what you wish for’.

What the Europhiles forget is that in this strong EU they hope to shape there are many others also hoping to shape it very differently. “Britain must take a lead in developing a strong European foreign policy if it is to retain its influence around the world,” according to David Miliband, "To be frightened of European foreign policy is blinkered, fatalistic and wrong. Britain should embrace it, shape it and lead European foreign policy." But what are the odds of Britain remotely shaping it, let alone leading it? In all probability Britain’s voice – so often divergent from our Continental relatives – would be lost in the noise of 26 others. Maybe it is self-confidence verging on arrogance and delusion that fills some leaders with the belief that they can convince the World to their view, that they have some mystic power of persuasion, but they can’t and they don’t. In short the Europhiles may get their strong Europe, but no one knows what Europe it will be, and the odds of it being an Atlanticist, free-trading sidekick are very remote.

October 23, 2009

Last night a man hardly anyone has heard of, who leads a party hardly anyone votes for, spoke views hardly anyone believes or agrees with, whilst appearing on a programme that hardly anyone normally watches. This may be blunt, but it’s true.

Here are some facts:

Only 64% of people have ever heard of Nick Clegg, so how many have ever heard of Nick Griffin – and how many will remember him next month? In the recent European Elections the BNP polled sixth, despite the expenses scandal, despite the proportional representation, despite the issue of Europe, and despite the recession, to win two seats – count them; one, two – out of a possible 69.. That’s BNP 2, everyone else 67. Even as a protest vote that’s pathetic, especially in a PR election for a largely powerless body (i.e. voters have nothing to lose). I’ve heard of a long march but that’s ridiculous. They were even beaten by the Greens, who’s vote also increased at nearly twice the BNP's rate. Neither are likely to be walking into Downing Street any time soon (they don’t even contest enough seats!).

I cannot find a statistic or poll about how many people in the UK deny the Holocaust, or semi-deny it as Griffin seems to confusingly claim, but I doubt it is many. I imagine the UK Holocaust denial rate is similar to the rate of people who believe Elvis lives on Mars drinking soup with the Clangers or think their children are being brainwashed by mobile phones/microwaves/vaccines and the only answer is to wear tin foil hats. Basically, not many.

President Klaus is a man who has a track record of keeping people guessing, and his recent statements from the latest “unstoppable train” analogy to the earlier “don’t worry, I won’t [sign the Lisbon Treaty]” have certainly kept us hanging on his every word. Quite frankly, he’s loving it. And knowing that he is personally opposed to the Treaty, and knows by holding out he can stop it, why on Earth would he sign?

People talk of pressure and threats from other European leaders, President Sarkozy is particularly belligerent, but what can they do? As far as I can see the most they can do is demean themselves by being rude in public, or ring him up every day to nag only for his secretary to say that he’s out meeting his fans. The idea of sanctions on the Czech Republic would hardly do the EU’s image any favours in the Czech Republic or elsewhere, would only stiffen resolve, and is probably illegal.

The only reason I can see is fear of damaging the Czech Republic’s image and standing; Klaus is a good patriot and is not likely to do anything he feels would damage his country. But equally he knows that the Lisbon Treaty is wrong, and far more permanent than his national PR. Indeed in many eyes he has raised his and his country’s standing – everyone is watching a country of just 10 million and he has the chance to be an international icon.

October 17, 2009

Having just days ago assured us that he wouldn't sign, it now looks as if President Klaus - the last man between us and the beginnings of a fully fledged European government - has caved in to the bullying of Eurofanatics and will now sign the Lisbon Treaty. The Czech President, whom I hope changes his mind again and delays signing until the Treaty can be defeated at a British ballot box, was on the verge of becoming an icon among Eurosceptics here in Britain. That iconic status and defiant place in history could still be his - and no doubt a good retirement of lecture tours - if he holds out for the likely 200 days until a May election; but we must face facts that this is increasingly unlikely and now prepare a Plan B.

What exactly is it to not let matters rest? Now the first and most simple answer is for an "in/out referendum". I would be termed a Eurosceptic but would rather label myself a Liberal Nationalist - I support self-determination and do not believe in any decision being made above the level of the nation state, without the full approval of that state, as the nation is the only unit we can really call democratic. Decisions can only be democratic if those involved have a sense of shared belonging, of being one people, of being a single "demos". Consequently I do not support the European Union, being made up as it is of numerous diverse (and brilliant) nations; however I do not support a referendum being established on the grounds of "in or out" - because we'd lose.

We - by which I mean those favouring the nation states over the superstate and thus voting for "out" - wouldn't lose because people support integration, because they don't, with polls showing only about 10% wanting more integration. We'd lose because "out" means change, and usually people shift during referendum campaigns to favour the "safe" status-quo to such an extent that it's regarded as neccessary to have a 60:40 margin in polls at the beginning in order to have a good chance of securing change - a fact compounded by the tendency of Europhiles to claim credit for everything and blame for nothing (i.e. lie). It would become a farce of "X many jobs depend on trade with Europe", "Europe helps the planet" and most insultingly "Europe has brought peace" - as if "Europe" and "the EU" are one and the same thing and that we would all descend overnight into trade blocking, Poland invading, tyre burning nutcases planning to start World War 3 because no-one from the European Commission told us not to sell curved cucumbers. It's rubbish, but they'd win.

The second option is a renegotiation. This isn't really ideal as it would take forever, sour relations, be as boring as watching paint dry, and whatever we gained - and it wouldn't be much, probably more a gesture really - would only be given away again by a future Labour government (of which I'm certain there will sadly be).

Really we need the first option of an "in/out referendum - I'm purposely ignorring the third option of accepting Lisbon as just too awful to contemplate - but without the "out" part. Basically we need to do what we should have been doing since the idea of a political Europe first started: proposing an alternative. If we can frame it as a question of being in the European Union or an alternative European Alliance, we could be onto something.

October 03, 2009

What a coincidentally apt place the great City of Manchester is for this year’s Party Conference. We know the City today for its regeneration, glut of apartments, nearby Coronation Street, and a vague notion of an industrial glory built upon mills and factories long since passed. But Manchester is also a place of political importance – not for its swing seats or memorable televised election moments but a breed of capitalism which became known as Manchesterism. How many cities can boast of having their own ideological –ism?

Most of us in the South associate “the North” politically as a left-leaning Labour heartland, but the history of Manchesterism serves to remind us that this was not always the case. There was a time when free trade and capitalism were the cause of the disadvantaged and working class, the theories of Adam Smith et al articulated in a way that emphasises the wealth creation and spreading of prosperity, the power of capitalism as a rising tide to lift all [willing/able] ships. This is Manchesterism.

Free trade liberalism, from an obscurity discussed only in the fringe of academic circles by men such as John Mill – a fact not aided by John Mill’s choice of title for his 1805 book on the subject, “An Essay on the Impolicy of a Bounty on the Exploration of Grain” – went on to become the dominant force and prevailing view, enabling Britain’s rapid industrial growth, economic development and social progress under the reign of Victoria. To paraphrase Churchill, who was coincidentally elected as Liberal MP for Manchester Northwest in 1908 on the free trade, it became the healthy horse pulling a sturdy wagon.

Manchesterism came about from the economic crisis exasperated by the Corn Laws, and having been through the recent economic crisis the central principles of the old Manchesterism – free trade, minimal state, individual liberty – are vital once more to our recovery.

The rise of “Manchesterism” in the 19th Century shows that the right vision of liberal capitalism – at the right time – can cause a realignment of generational scale. So whilst in Manchester take a walk to Peter Street where the Anti-Corn Law League first met on the site of the magnificent Free Trade Hall – now a hotel – which I understand is the only public building in Britain named after a principle rather than a person or place. We need to rearticulate liberal-conservatism just as those same principles were rearticulated here nearly two centuries ago, so we’ve come to the right place…

* * * * *

I unfortunately won’t be at what is set to become the most important Party Conference in a generation, but I would like to wish all my CH CentreRight readers attending the event a very happy conference.

September 29, 2009

Here's a break from the coverage of tumbleweed blowing around the Labour Conference in the form of a quick quiz. The question: who pointed out that Britain's NHS isn't the envy of the World but actually the worst health service in Western Europe and gave the following quote...

"As the Netherlands is expanding its lead among the best performing countries [on healthcare], the index indicates that the Dutch might have found a successful approach. [The secret of their success is that they] combine competition for funding and provision within a regulated framework. There are information tools to support active choice among consumers. The Netherlands have started working on patient empowerment early, which now clearly pays off in many areas. And politicians and bureaucrats are comparatively far removed from operative decisions on delivery of Dutch healthcare services...forward-looking governments start using healthcare information and choice to engage patients in the decision-making, building a pressure from below for improvement."

Such a quote and painful league table - Britain placed 14th in Europe, lowest in Western Europe - is usually dismissed with a smear against the person who dared to question the national religion, who dared to deny the wonder of the NHS or failed to declare unquestioning love of it. Who could say such a thing and compare the NHS to that of 15th placed Slovenia? Must be some crazed head banger bent on profiteering from illness or denying care to "the poor", keen to bring in the feared "competition" and "choice" to "break up" the NHS. Was it Dan Hannan? Was it the Reform think tank? Was it me?

September 19, 2009

There is a scene in the BBC series “Cambridge Spies” in which during their defection to the Soviet Union one of the Cambridge spy ring – I forget which now – states that if he had to choose between betraying his friends or betraying his country, he would hope to always choose the latter. The scene came to mind when I heard that President Obama had decided to abandon the missile defence shield planned for construction in Poland and the Czech Republic; here was a man who had managed to betray both his friends and his country, again to the delight of Russia.

The decision is one that has been expected for a long time. In February it was known that the missile interceptors were on the table for abandonment, and during the US Presidential election this had been mentioned. By entering into appeasement politics and no doubt negotiations Obama has once again used the Czech Republic and particularly Poland as sacrifices in his game of Russian appeasement; pawns to their rooks. A cruel betrayal – for both the Czech Republic and Poland certainly acted courageously in agreeing to host the defences – made all the crueller and more inept by Obama’s timing: 70 years to the day that the Soviet Union invaded the latter as part of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact with Nazi Germany and begun its half century of hell.

But to characterise this as a betrayal of the Czech Republic and Poland would be to tell less than half the story. Obama’s actions have betrayed all of Europe – East and West – as well as the United States. Though ostensibly the missile shield was to protect against Iran – hence the ‘new evidence’ of Iranian focus on short/medium range missiles only* – it patently wasn’t. I know it was to protect against Russia, you know it was to protect against Russia, Obama knows it was to protect against Russia, the Russians know it was to protect against Russia, everyone knows it was to protect against Russia – that’s why it was to be located where it was and why Russia disliked it so much!

As Michael Boyle wrote in The Guardian, “The missile shield plan of the Bush administration held out the hope of absolute protection from attack against the US and its allies…which, if realised, would have called into question the strategic defence balance in Europe.” He strangely however seems to think tilting the balance in our favour, of free liberal democracy, and offering protection from destruction would be a bad thing. I certainly don’t!

September 13, 2009

Last night a truly special event took place in the heart of London and across the country, televised and broadcast to millions, and symbolic in a unique way of what makes Britain so great. For some the Last Night of the Proms is pure jingoism and over-zealous nationalism, for some lovers of classical music it is an embarassing festival of eccentric silliness that degrades the whole genre, but in reality it is the fact that it is in a way a little of each - both patriotic and slightly silly - that makes it so great, so British, and so symbolic of what makes Britain great.
We know Britannia no longer rules the waves and to say so is a bit silly, but we're still going to sing it because we don't care that it isn't exactly true, and as proof that we don't care there's a lady in the third row dressed as a Viking and the opera singer leading the show is dressed as Nelson, to say nothing of the vacuum cleaners of earlier in the evening. We are proud of our country, but aren't arrogant with it, and the fact that we aren't affraid to laugh at ourselves and be slightly eccentric or silly is proof - and that is something both very British, and very great. The politically correct people who would like to dismantle all forms of patriotism and the purists who feel the whole thing too embarassing shall not stop us, because as the song says, Britons never shall be slaves - to them or any other.
* * * * *
On the theme of the Last Night of the Proms, and what seemed to me a year with rather less "Land of Hope and Glory" than usual and of course no "Fantasia of Sea Shanties", I got thinking what other music symbolises our country and what else would be nice to hear on the Last Night.
"Rule, Britannia!" for me is great but a bit showy, I tend to prefer the less militaristic and more romantic "Land of Hope and Glory" with its assertation of the freedom that is the true spirit of this nation and of course "Jerusalem", with its love of our countryside and fight for a better tomorrow. But for me the favourite has to be the serviceful "I Vow To Thee My Country", which combines the rural romanticism of Jerusalem with the love of country and service to it ("all other things aside") that - shown by so many over the years - enables us not only to freely dress up in daft outfits or wave flags each year but truthfully sing of our great "...land of the free".

September 08, 2009

The recent plans by one-fifth of councils to end election night counts in favour of next day counts has met considerable hostility from political enthusiasts, and it's easy to understand why. The present election night system - traditional since the widespread adoption of television - works well and the prospect of 'not knowing' potentially until the following afternoon would be dreadful. The nation would be in limbo, the markets would suffer, and a day of idle speculation by every talking head in Britain would drive us all mad.

Election Night is not only a slightly unusual way of recording history and changing attitudes for future generations to watch back on BBC Parliament, and a surreal tour of the country in which you only visit town halls and sports centres with television personalities long since retired from the normal less-stretched demands of the networks (many of whom you thought died long ago), but also the one piece of political television many people watch. Election Night 2005 on BBC One from 9.55pm-2.00am) was watched by six million people at its peak, with an average of 4.3 million. A total of 14.9 million viewers watched some of the BBC’s coverage that night. More still watched ITV and Sky. And as Election Night covers that all important concept of democratic change - kicking the rascals out - it is without doubt the most important as an educational tool. Switching from the watchable four hours to a split, painfully long marathon would be like axing 20/20 cricket for an all day and all night Test Series.